El Dilluns, 11 de maig de 2015, a les 11:52:13, Paul Wise va escriure: > On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > > people.d.o AFAIK is _only_ for DD. Anyway, if I can see it correctly it's > > only web space. > > > > My ppa propose could be also useful for Debian members. I think that new > > packages, are controller by ftp-masters, so any help to create a new > > package could be welcome. > > I think you may have misunderstood the proposal that this thread is > about. The proposal was not for a PPA system like on Launchpad where > any member of the public can register an account and immediately > upload packages. The access policy for the proposed Debian PPA system > was to be exactly the same as for the rest of the Debian archive; only > accessible by uploading Debian members (aka DDs), others need to go > through a sponsor. In that sense, it is almost exactly the same as > people.d.o or *.debian.net. > > https://lists.debian.org/87y5btehw3....@gkar.ganneff.de
I misunderstood the proposal but after read the complete history I agree in general. It looks like it's a very cool project. If the creation of pps could be a more open that not _only_ DD, to me is perfect. At least DM. > > One interesting thing of mentors is that the packages are checked by > > lintian, so you need some binary ... > > You definitely do not need to upload binaries to mentors. I do not understand how lintian can do a complete check without binaries. For instance is a package is empty or not, or if you have installed a binary without manpage, or the sonames are correct or not. But probably I have misunderstood something in the thread. [...] > > > I cannot understand why you have this opposition. They idea is that the > > project could offer the option to build packages for Debian. > > We already have that: > > https://buildd.debian.org/ > https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi > > I'm not sure how/if the PPA proposal will use these machines though. only for DD... > > that you could say that, then you will have a lot of packages, maybe > > without quality, and you don't want the make a relation between that > > packages and the official ones. But, this is another thing. > > Indeed. > > > Not only non-x86. I work _only_ with amd64 arch. In theory, it should not > > be necessary to have another pbuild environment for 32 bit: they are > > quite identical. However, I can say that we suffered in one bug of our > > packages because, in 32 bits, sometimes FTBFS because an strange > > combination of memory and parallel compilation. And, we were three > > persons involved in that package: two uploaders and one sponsor. > > Sounds like an "interesting" bug :) > > For building on i386 I'd just use pbuilder and or qemu. > > If people would like to be able to build/test on other arches before > uploading to Debian, there are some options already: > > Debian members can login to Debian porterboxen and run > builds/tests/etc in various chroots: > > https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi > > Debian contributors can get guest accounts on the Debian porterboxen > and do the same: > > https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ Very interesting. Thanks for the info. > Anyone can buy or solicit donations of hardware and build/test on those. > Anyone can use the existing services (LAVA, GCC, OpenPOWER and cloud > providers). > > https://wiki.debian.org/Hardware/Wanted Thanks. Well, now just wait to see. Leopold -- -- Linux User 152692 GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA Catalonia ------------------------------------- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
